4.7 Article

Identification of Novel Biomarkers of Brain Damage in Patients with Hemorrhagic Stroke by Integrating Bioinformatics and Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 969-981

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr401111h

关键词

biomarker; cerebrospinal fluid; neurofilament; selected reaction monitoring; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hemorrhagic stroke (HS) is a significant cause of mortality that requires rapid diagnosis and prompt medical attention. A time-efficient diagnostic test to assist in the early classification of patients with stroke would be of great value. The aims here were to (a) select brain-specific proteins using a bioinformatics approach, (b) develop selected reaction Monitoring (SRM) assays for candidate proteins, and (c) quantify these proteins in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The Human Protein Atlas and the Peptide Atlas were used to select proteins specifically and abundantly expressed in brain tissue, excluding high-abundance plasma proteins. Protein extracts from brain tissue were used for SRM assay development of proteins of interest. The levels of 68 brain-specific proteins were measured by SRM in 36 age-matched patients, including individuals with HS (n = 15), ischemic stroke (n = 11), and controls (n = 10). Additionally, S100B was measured using an electrochemoluminometric immunoassay. CSF levels of S100B and eight of the brain-specific proteins (NSE, GFAP, alpha-lnx, MBP, MT3, NFM, beta-Syn, and gamma-Syn) were increased in a subset of samples from HS patients, especially in those individuals with intraventricular hemorrhage and poor outcome. Seven of these proteins (S100B, NSE, GFAP, alpha-lnx, MBP, NFM, and beta-Syn) showed significant differences between patients with and without brain hemorrhage. Novel biomarkers of brain injury (alpha-lnx, NFM, and beta-Syn) were identified in the CSF of patients with HS. Investigating the role of these proteins in blood with more sensitive methods is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据